Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing
by using Descartes reasoning. (From
http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) "The only
thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt
that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere
(viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he
existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very
beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think
therefore I am)."
I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I
don't understand what you mean by "nothing." By "nothing" I mean no thing,
not even empty space.
In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist.
Yet it does. Why? This seems inherently unanswerable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
> How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead
> of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe
> the existence of "nothing" is consistent with our own experiences.
> I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question
> to have meaning in its simple form. It's easy to put words together,
> but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful.
> Hal Finney